Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. Heard both sides. These two appeals have been filed by the department and the appellant assessee M/s. Samrat International (SI) against the very same impugned order. Appeal No. C/346/07 2. This appeal has been filed by the department. It is seen from the brief facts of the case recorded by the department in the departmental appeal that SI exported 17 consignments of Stainless Steel utensils earlier declaring the same to be of AISI304 grade under DEEC scheme. Subsequently, they entered for export two similar consignments which upon examination were found to be of different grade. The adjudicating Commissioner has imposed redemption fine and penalty in respect of the two consignments but has held the previous 17 consignments to have been correctly declared under DEEC Scheme vide para-27(e) of his order. In the department’s appeal this portion of his order is challenged, on the ground that the same adjudicating Commissioner had taken different view in respect of two other cases o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. Heard both sides. 2. The present appeal was allowed by a short order after hearing both sides with the following observation:- “Both sides agree that the appellants have paid excess amount of service tax in advance, which has been adjusted against the future liability for the subsequent period. In such a case, lenient consideration is called for to allow such adjustment as was held in the case of Narnolia Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ranchi - 2008(10) STR 619 (Tri.-Kolkota). I order accordingly and set aside the impugned order including the penalty imposed.” (Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) 3. In an appeal filed by the Department, the following question was raised before the Hon’ble Madras High Court:- “Whether the Tribunal would be justified in allowing the appeal at the instance of the assessee by taking a lenient view for a claim of adjustment only on the ground that the assessee has paid excess amount in advance, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Mathew John, J. 1. The respondents in this case were engaged in the manufacture of Cinematographic Positive films, Photographic Films and Photographic Paper. They manufactured the goods and sold it at a price to M/s.Asian Photographic Films Pvt. Ltd., Madras. (APFP, for short). M/s.APFP were incurring expenses for advertising the products of the respondents to encourage sale of goods. The case of the Revenue is that the advertisement expenses incurred by APFP should have been included in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the respondents because they are doing such advertisement on behalf of the respondents. 2. Revenue relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. reported in 1983 (14) ELT 1896 (SC). Based on this argument, a SCN was issued and adjudicated. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for duty. Against that order, the respondents filed an appeal with the Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Mathew John, J. 1. The appellants are providing services in the categories of Custom House Agents Service, Business Auxiliary Service and Goods Transport Agency Service. The appellants are recognized by International Air Transport Association and render various services to exporters and importers like customs-clearance, packing, loading and unloading, booking cargo space in airlines, freight forwarding etc. As consideration for their service, appellants received payments under the heads of commission, handling charges, profit share, transshipment revenue, airway bill charges, charges collect fee, etc.2. During audit of the accounts of the appellants, Revenue noticed that the Appellants had not paid service tax on amounts collected under the head charges collect fee, ‘profit share’, ‘transshipment charges’ etc. There were also some other amounts collected by them from their customers like EDI charges, stuffing charges etc. as reimbursable ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Mathew John, J. 1. There is a delay of 56 days in filing the appeal. Appellant submits that this delay happened as their company was taken over by M/s.Steel Authority of India Ltd. and there has been some delay in office consequent to such changeover of the management and that the delay was not due to negligence. Considering the explanation given, the delay is condoned and the COD application is thus allowed. 2. The dispute involved in this case is that the appellant is using inputs in the manufacture of both exempted and dutiable products and the appellants did not follow procedures prescribed in Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and did not maintain separate accounts in respect of goods used in the manufacture of exempted products. Consequently, the Revenue proposed to demand 10% of the value of exempted products as per provision in Rule 6(3). For certain period, the amount demanded is 5% in view of change in the rate prescribed under Rule 6 (3) of C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Mathew John: 1. The appellants are manufacturers of lubricating oils of various specifications. They have been availing the benefit of MODVAT credit of excise duty paid on inputs as well as packing materials used in the manufacture of such finished lubricating oils. 2. On 26.3.96, the officers of Central Excise department visited the factory of the appellants and conducted a stock taking. They found shortage of 28,760 ltrs. of finished goods, 1,02,739 kgs. of inputs and 69,805 nos. of packing materials in the physical stock available as compared to the accounted stock. The Revenue proposed to demand excise duty in respect of finished goods found short as also reversal of the CENVAT credit taken on inputs and packing materials which were found short. A show-cause notice issued in this regard was adjudicated confirming demand of duty of Rs.1,21,109/- in respect of finished goods, Rs.19,06,004/- in respect of inputs and packing materials. Further, a penalty of Rs.1,21,109/- was imposed un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, J. 1. Heard both sides. The appellants have imported six vehicles of different models during the month of March 2007. They have imported another two vehicles out of the models already imported earlier during July 2007. The learned advocate for the appellants states that the first six vehicles were imported for certification purposes and the subsequent two vehicles were imported for testing purposes. According to him, these eight vehicles were supplied free of charge by M/s.Volvo Car Corporation. The impugned show-cause notice dt. 6.9.2007 was issued proposing enhancement of the value declared for all the eight vehicles, and violation of import licensing requirements was also alleged. Under the impugned order, three cars have been allowed being permissible to be imported by companies having foreign equity participation, and import of rest of the five vehicles has been held to be in violation of import licensing requirements. The value de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per D.N.Panda, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the consequence of Order-in-Original dt. 22.12.2008, the appellant carried grievance to the Tribunal submitting that composite contract for supply of elevators/escalators for residential and commercial building sizably involved material components and amounting to sale of goods without substantially involving providing of service and is not taxable under Finance Act, 1944 as commissioning and escalation service provided. 2. Moving the stay application, ld. Counsel submitted that at page 10 of the adjudication order, the quantum of service was depicted by the adjudicating authority from invoice and noticed that 15% of the contract value was claimed to be value of service and that was cum tax value towards erection and installation and hence service tax liability was discharged on that. The authority did not believe that 15% of the contract value shall be service element and imposed service tax to the extent of Rs.15,02,30,497/- followed by e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
D.N. Panda 1. Noticing role of this appellant in the attempt to export of foreign currencies of various denominations, Travellers cheques and Indian currency of aggregate value of Rs.3,53,79,061/- to Singapore by one Sri Nallaian Pargunam @ Joseph and his wife, the appellant was penalised as an abettor under Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in terms of adjudication order dated 02.05.2003. The Appellant came before Tribunal being aggrieved by that order imposing penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on him under Section 114 of the Act. While imposing penalty, learned Adjudicating authority found involvement of this appellant in the above attempt from statement recorded from one Sri J. Sickander on 11.3.1996 as extracted in para-7 of the impugned order and in so far as that is relevant is extracted below : “Shri J.Sickander, in his statement dated 11.03.96 stated inter alia that he was the owner of Samrat Rest house at Triplicane, that in January, 1996, he met Shri Jafarullah...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. The impugned goods were not allowed to be exported by the customs authorities holding them to be non-alloy steel. The matter came before the Tribunal earlier when it was found that the test reports obtained by the appellants from M/s.Kidao Laboratories and the test reports got by the customs authorities from M/s.National Metallurgical Laboratory (NML) were different. The matter was remanded for fresh decision after retesting of the samples by the NML. The jurisdictional Commissioner has since passed a fresh order against which the present appeals have been preferred. 2. In the impugned order, the adjudicating Commissioner has held the impugned goods to be non-alloy steel. He has confiscated the goods and has allowed the same to be taken back on payment of a redemption fine of Rs.45 lakhs. He has imposed penalties of Rs.12 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs on the appellant-company under Sections 114 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. He has also impose...
Tag this Judgment!